[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vulnerability Description Ontology

What we currently have (e.g. CVRF) is not only laughably out of date (can we have CVSSv3 please?) but solves a problem that no longer exists (in the sense of the problem has gotten so much worse...). Our current problems are much scarier, and the problems we will have in 5 years ... Yeah. If we don't strongly automate this (like I mentioned int he call we need the low level bits like ASN.1->X.509->HTTPS) we are doomed. 

I'll be honest, the whole reason the DWF is moving so slowly is I'm not doing any work on it in order to let it pile up and see what we need to do to automate it and how (now I'm playing catch up on the first bits, and documenting what/how this will all be automated). The problem is we're going to be automating something that heavily involves humans as the source (computers produce nice data, humans produce... stuff =). 

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Millar, Thomas <Thomas.Millar@hq.dhs.gov> wrote:
This might come off like a rant but it's really not

NVD (namely, Harold) has been working on a bigger and better structured format for security bug data for ages, especially since CVRF came out, and was/is basically an advisory format so multiple incumbent vendors share testing and patch data.

This ontology m,from my perspective, is a strong attempt at creating a way for security-affecting bug knowledge to be captured in a structure that accommodates for all the wacky use cases we've learned about over the decades (decades!) so that various collectors, curators and creators of such data can share alike.

A few years ago it was okay to have proprietary scripts and expert knowledge serving the purpose, but now there's too many vulns (with and without CVEs) and too many DBs and tools. Harold's ontology draft is the beginning of a better and more systematic approach.

Did I overdo it? Am I false?

Tom Millar, US-CERT

Sent from +1-202-631-1915

From: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org on behalf of jericho
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 11:37:19 PM
To: Booth, Harold (Fed)
Cc: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Vulnerability Description Ontology

: This is the first of hopefully several drafts and we are looking at the
: comments to see in which ways we need to modify in order to satisfy the
: needs for vulnerability management.

I am curious what perceived 'gap' in vulnerability management this is
designed to fill. Can you elaborate on the origins of this initiative?



Kurt Seifried -- Red Hat -- Product Security -- Cloud
PGP A90B F995 7350 148F 66BF 7554 160D 4553 5E26 7993
Red Hat Product Security contact: secalert@redhat.com

Page Last Updated or Reviewed: October 06, 2016